I was surprised to discover the wide distribution of support for Prop 19, the loudest advocates of course being the libertarians-- Reason and the CATO Institute (who've been advocating the loudest, and longest), as well as the expected progressive voices: Huffington Post, Salon, etc. But support also came from "conservative publications such as The Economist and National Review, prominent Republicans such as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a growing portion of the Tea Party movement, and even Fox News personality Glenn Beck. (Beck has said he favors marijuana legalization, although he has been typically schizophrenic on Prop. 19.)"
Which brings me to the main point of this article, which claims that the media is not, as is commonly asserted, liberal:
"It's telling that the loudest voices opposing pot legalization are coming from the mainstream media, politicians, and law enforcement. The three have a lot in common. Indeed, the Prop. 19 split illustrates how conservative critics of the mainstream media have it all wrong. The media—or at least the editorial boards at the country's major newspapers—don't suffer from liberal bias; they suffer from statism. While conservatives emphasize order and property, liberals emphasize equality, and libertarians emphasize individual rights, newspaper editorial boards are biased toward power and authority, automatically turning to politicians for solutions to every perceived problem."
5 comments:
I have to think about the premise that the media is biased toward power and authority. But, in the meantime, I don't think that the marijuana issue is much of a bell-weather of anything. I never considered the legalization of marijuana to be a liberal issue. Its ban certainly does not strike me as a great injustice like the ban on gay marriage, or the fight over the ground zero Islamic center. Nor does it have the weight of health care reform or the need to rein in the american military. Really, no mater how you slice it, it's hardly much of a game changer.
Though marijuana legalization is certainly not on par with Civil Rights marches or Anti-Vietnam protests, there are some pretty big injustices as a result of prohibition: minorities suffer disproportionately high numbers of arrests and prison sentences for marijuana possession. The unceasing demand of drugs by US citizens directly fuels the bloody, medieval-like wars ravaging Mexico (legalization would destroy the cartels). Fact is, prohibition hasn't abated demand.
And, it's a political problem whose solution seems comparatively easy and clearcut (as opposed to overhauling Healthcare or banking reform).
On a more principled level, where one stands on legalization seems a pretty solid marker on the personal freedom vs. government intervention spectrum.
A better thought-out, more articulate argument just appeared on Sullivan.
On a more principled level, where one stands on legalization seems a pretty solid marker on the personal freedom vs. government intervention spectrum.
Wait, now I'm confused. I thought, as a hard core leftist, I was in favor of government intervention. See health care reform, TARP, banking regulation, stimulus packages, medicaid, medicare, social security, GI bill, Civil Rights legislation, Voting Rights Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, child labor laws, 15th amendment (ending slavery). Was I supposed to be opposing all these things?
I'm talking about specific government interventions that restrict, rather than protect, personal freedoms-- e.g. legislation against gay marriage, sodomy laws, dry districts and drug prohibition, etc. These are different in kind from interventions on social security, child labor, and the like.
And yes, hard-core leftists do favor government intervention in some personal liberty areas, like NYC's restrictions on salt in food, or San Fransisco's recent ban on toys in Happy Meals, or more broadly, in its support of hate crime and hate speech laws. In this way, hard-core leftists are similar to hard-core socially conservative right-wingers on the principle government intervention.
Post a Comment